Search

Purpose: Recent studies indicate that reusing healing abutments (HAs) may pose a risk of biomaterial cross contamination among patients. The intent is to investigate whether postgraduate periodontics residency programs in the United States are reusing dental implant HAs and determine if there is a standardization in the decontamination and sterilization protocol of used HAs., Methods: An electronic survey consisting of-seven multiple choice and/or short answer questions pertaining to the re-use of HAs among postdoctoral periodontics programs was sent to program directors of 57 accredited dental schools in the United States via an online survey system (Qualtrics). Three follow-up remainder emails were sent to programs that did not respond after over a 6-month period. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics., Results: Of the 57 postdoctoral periodontics program directors contacted, only 14 responded with three programs (3/14, 21%) reported reusing HAs. Approximately, 46% stated their residents place dental implants in two stages, while ∼54% stated they used a one-stage protocol indicating varied time exposure of HA to the oral cavity. Even in a two-stage protocol, the extended time HA remained in situ varied from 4 weeks to 6 months. Each program reusing HAs employed a distinct decontamination approach highlighting a notable lack of standardization in practices., Conclusion: The findings from our study suggest that a minority of residency programs in the United States are reusing HAs. However, the limited number of responses leaves uncertainty regarding whether our findings underestimate the prevalence of this practice and accurately reflect the reality. Among those re-using HAs, there seems to be a lack of standardization in their decontamination, potentially leading to cross-contamination of residual biomaterial among patients., (© 2024 The Author(s). Journal of Dental Education published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Dental Education Association.)

The article offers information on the use of magnetically retained overdentures in dental treatments. It is stated that magnetically retained overdentures are maintenance-free and inexpensive to fabricate, and average practitioners are well aware of this technique. One of the advantages of overdentures is that it distributes occlusal loads to the remaining periodontium of retained abutments. An attempt is made to eliminate possible misconceptions regarding the use of magnets in overdentures. It has also been used with good success in Europe and the U.S.

Purpose: The use of the conical coupling connection to support definitive restorations was evaluated in cases involving full acrylic resin or hybrid acrylic resin-composite prostheses. The aim of this study was to evaluate the performance of definitive fixed partial prostheses made with lithium disilicate and supported by coupling connection abutments and healed implants. Materials and Methods: The prostheses were placed in the posterior regions of partially edentulous patients; 65 patients received fixed lithium disilicate restorations splinted with conical coupling connections to two implants. Implants were placed into healed sites and fresh extraction sockets. The prostheses were placed after healing periods of 3 months: restorations were followed yearly for 3 years. At each follow-up visit, peri-implant bone levels and pocket depths were recorded. Esthetic, functional, and biologic United States Public Health Services (USPHS) parameters modified by the FDI World Dental Federation study design were assessed at the last follow-up appointments. Results: Two prostheses (3.07%) fractured: one was related to framework design error; one was caused by a car accident. Three patients reported small chips: these restorations were immediately polished. No significant difference involving periimplant bone and probing levels between the experimental times were found. None of the prostheses became loose. Conclusions: The results of this research indicated that abutment-prostheses coupling connections were successful within the timeframe of this study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To investigate various cleaning protocols employed to enable the reuse of healing abutments in the past decade., Materials and Methods: The review followed the guidelines set out in the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement, with guidance from the Cochrane Collaboration Handbook. Electronic searching and handsearching were performed using the National Library of Medicine (MEDLINE via PubMed) and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from January 2010 to July 2022, respectively. Studies published in English were evaluated. Two independent examiners conducted the search and the review process. The risk of bias of the included studies was evaluated., Results: In total, 178 articles were evaluated for review, but only 15 of them were selected for full-text reading. Regarding cleaning efficacy, chemical decontamination using sodium hypochlorite produced better results than laser and mechanical decontamination with airflow. Similar efficacy was found between chemical and electrochemical decontamination. Combined use of chemical and electrochemical decontamination protocols demonstrated the greatest efficacy. Chemical and electrochemical decontamination methods were found to achieve better outcomes in preserving the surface properties of decontaminated healing abutments than laser and mechanical methods., Conclusion: The present review found that combined decontamination protocols (chemical, electrochemical processing and autoclave treatment) are favourable for obtaining healing abutments with optimally cleaned surfaces. Moreover, healing abutments located in an area that is difficult to access can be cleaned without affecting the surface properties. This information could benefit researchers and clinicians when multiple-use healing abutments are considered.

Introduction: Although healing abutments are designated for single use by most implant manufacturers, it is common practice for clinicians to reuse healing abutments. However, there is a lack of adequate references that describe detailed sterilization protocols for reuse of healing abutments., Objectives: The purpose of this systematic review was to compile, organize, and describe the most common techniques for the sterilization of healing abutments and their efficiency in eliminating traces of microorganisms., Methods: An electronic search in 5 different databases was performed, including the National Library of Medicine (MEDLINE via PubMed), Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, and Google Scholar from January 2000 to December 2020. Search variables included were dental implant, healing abutment, contaminate, contamination, reuse, and sterilization. Studies reporting with a minimum sample size of 10 healing abutments (5 per group) published in the English language were evaluated. Risk of bias assessment was elaborated for included investigations., Results: In total, 812 articles were identified, of which 8 were included in the analysis. Steam autoclave was the most widely used form of resterilization. Not a single protocol, however, was able to achieve 100% virgin surface of the healing abutments., Conclusion: Although reuse of dental implant healing abutments is a cost-effective measure in dental practice, thorough surface decontamination followed by resterilization is highly recommended before reuse., Knowledge Transfer Statement: With consideration of cost and patient preference, results of this review would be useful in knowing various sterilization protocols for reusing healing abutments that could lead to more appropriate therapeutic decisions.

Aim: To evaluate abutments and status of FPDs of patients who asked for replacement of FPDs. Materials and Methods: A total of 115 people were who referred to Ege University, School of Dentistry, Department of Prosthodontics for the removal of their FPDs for various reasons participated. Their age ranged from 35 to 76 (53.98±8.55) years. The FPDs evaluated were as follows: 15 (13%) full metal crowns, 63 (54.8%) metal-acrylic bridges and 37 (32.2%) metal-ceramic bridges. The numbers of units, the location of restorations in the arch, the age and the type of restorations were recorded. The Modified United States Public Dental Health (USPDH) criteria were used to evaluate the occlusion, and the Modified California Dental Association (CDA) criteria were utilized for evaluation of the clinical quality of restorations. Results: A total of 100 bridges with 727 units were examined, containing 464 abutments and 263 pontics. The mean age of FPDs was 6.53(±7.04) years for the crowns, 8.16(±9.28) years for metal-ceramic bridges, and 10.00(±6.21) years for the metal-acrylic bridges. The mean age of FPDs was significantly higher in the metalacrylic group than in the metal-ceramic (p=0.017) and the full metal crown groups (p=0.015). The clinical assessment revealed that periodontal health (p=0.011), esthetics (p=0.000) and hygiene (p=0.002) were lower in the metal acrylic FPDs than in the other FPDs. The loss of proximal contacts were the highest in the metal-acrylic FPDs (p=0.003). Conclusions: Prior to the removal of FPDs, it was found, based on the CDA criteria, that, 'unacceptable' ratings of periodontal health, esthetics and hygiene were higher in the metal-acrylic FPDs than in the metal-ceramic and the full crown FPDs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The aim of this study was to provide an overview of current predoctoral implant programs in the United States, including curricular characteristics and clinical practices regarding implant therapy education and program directors' characteristics. An electronic survey was sent to predoctoral implant program directors of all 64 accredited U.S. dental schools; 52 of the 60 eligible programs responded, for a response rate of 87%. The responding program directors were primarily affiliated with either prosthodontics departments (44%) or restorative dentistry departments (40%). Structurally, 80.8% of the responding schools integrate their implant programs into the third year of the curriculum. Clinical implant therapy exercises reported were simulation exercises without direct patient care (90.4% of responding schools) and direct patient care under supervision (94.2%). The most frequently taught restorative modalities are posterior single-tooth implant crown (96.2%), mandibular implant-retained overdenture (88.5%), and anterior implant-supported single crown (61.5%). A majority (74.5%) of responding programs utilize analog surgical guide planning, while 25.5% reported use of digital guided surgery planning software. All schools in the Northwest and 66.7% in the South Central regions utilize custom abutments as the primary abutment design, while a majority of schools in the North Central (62.5%), Northeast (53.8%), Southwest (66.7%), and Southeast (80%) regions use stock abutments (p=0.02). Regional differences were significant with regard to fixation modality, with all the Northwest programs using screw retention and 90% of Southeast and 87.5% of North Central programs using cement retention (p=0.002). This study demonstrated that while institutions share program director and curricular similarities, clinical practices and modalities vary significantly by region.

Presents a technique modification for a single-tooth implant restoration. Application of the first generation of single-tooth abutments produced for the U.S. market; Challenges presented by cemented crowns on implant abutments; Modification of ceramic crown contours.

Statement of Problem: With conflicting results in the literature and various manufacturer recommendations, it is not known what cementation protocols are currently being used for implant restorations in US dental schools., Purpose: The purpose of this survey was to determine what dental cementation protocols are taught and recommended by 62 US dental schools and postgraduate programs., Material and Methods: From February to September 2008, 96 questionnaires consisting of 8 questions were sent to the chairperson or director of restorative departments, advanced prosthodontics programs, and implant programs. The questionnaire asked recipients which implant manufacturers provided the products used at their dental schools. Additionally, recipients were queried as to the choice of material and techniques for abutment and restoration preparations prior to definitive cementation. Data were analyzed with descriptive statistics., Results: A total of 68 (71%) surveys were returned, and 52 (84%) of the 62 predoctoral and postgraduate programs were represented. After deleting duplicate responses, 31 surveys were returned from restorative department chairpersons, 29 from advanced prosthodontic program directors, and 2 from implant program directors. Frequency of responses to each question was tabulated, and results are presented in 3 sections. For all 3 types of programs, Nobel Biocare was reported to be the most widely used implant system, followed by Biomet 3i, Straumann, Astra Tech, and Zimmer Dental systems. The most commonly used technique prior to definitive cementation is to airborne-particle abrade the intaglio surface of the restoration. Resin-modified glass ionomer is the most frequently used luting agent for cementing implant restorations. The 5 most commonly used materials to fill screw access openings are cotton pellets, composite resin, rubber-based material, gutta-percha, and light-polymerized provisional composite resin. Most predoctoral and postgraduate programs teach students to fill the screw access opening completely to the occlusal surface., Conclusions: There are a wide range of implant cementation protocols and materials used; however, some common trends were identified among predoctoral and postgraduate programs.

Organizing multiple and varied implant components in preparation for providing treatment for a patient with a complex implant prosthesis can be a challenge to even the most experienced practitioner. The many implant abutment component options available, especially when different sizes and types of abutments will be used in 1 arch, can create confusion for both dentist and assistant, hindering chairside efficiency. This article describes the fabrication and use of a custom chairside implant components organizer.

In a short trip through more than twenty years, the development of the ITI DENTAL IMPLANT SYSTEM is described. The systematic unfolding and continuous advancement of the system, permanently supported and accompanied by scientific work in clinical and general practice, is outlined in short paragraphs. Some major milestones are emphasized and characterized.

A common assumption when planning for treatment for a fixed partial denture potentially involving an osseointegrated implant is to avoid connection between the implant and natural tooth abutment because of the differences in mobility and potential long-term effects. A large population was surveyed to measure the incidence of natural tooth intrusion in implant-assisted fixed partial dentures (IAFPD) and to try to identify a correlation between type of implant and/or type of connector. Natural tooth intrusion occurred in 3.5% of the patient population specifically treated with IAFPD. No correlation could be made between incidence of intrusion and the type of implant or type of connector used.

The prevalence of removable partial dentures in North America is not known. This study was designed to collect information about (1) the indications for, (2) the teeth to be replaced with, and (3) the type of major connectors used in removable partial dentures. Five commercial dental laboratories situated in different regions of North America were selected to give as wide as possible a view of the production of removable partial dentures. Each laboratory was asked to provide details of 300 consecutive removable partial dentures. Photographs (35 mm) of master casts and processed partial dentures were obtained for more than 1300 patients. The color slides were analyzed and the remaining teeth and types of dentures were recorded. The dentures were classified as follows: cast frame denture, acrylic resin denture with or without some wrought metal, and acrylic resin denture with some cast units. The major connectors were classified as one of seven alternatives in the maxillae, and as one of six alternatives in the mandible.